Individual vocal differences of the coo call in Japanese monkeys

Ceugniet, Miyuki; Izumi, Akihiro

doi:10.1016/j.crvi.2003.11.008

Cited by 11 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These functions should result in an emphasis on the acoustic features characteristic of particular individuals. Acoustic individuality in vocalization has been demonstrated in a wide range of primate species using field investigations and laboratory experiments [e.g., mouse lemur Microcebus murinus, Zimmermann & Lerch, 1993; cotton-top tamarin Sayuinus oedipus, Snowdon et al, 1983; common marmoset Callithrix jacchus, Jones et al, 1993; tufted-ear marmoset Callithrix kuhli, Jorgensen & French, 1998; spider monkey Ateles geoffroyi, Chapman & Weary, 1990; squirrel monkey Saimiri sciureus, Boinski & Mitchell, 1997; rhesus monkey Macaca mulatta, Rendall et al, 1998; Japanese macaque Macaca fuscata, Ceugniet & Izumi, 2004; and chimpanzee Pan troglodytes, Mitani et al, 1996].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acoustic features contributing to the individuality of wild agile gibbon (Hylobates agilis agilis) songs

Oyakawa

Koda

Sugiura

2007

American J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined acoustic individuality in wild agile gibbon Hylobates agilis agilis and determined the acoustic variables that contribute to individual discrimination using multivariate analyses. We recorded 125 female-specific songs (great calls) from six groups in west Sumatra and measured 58 acoustic variables for each great call. We performed principal component analysis to summarize the 58 variables into six acoustic principal components (PCs). Generally, each PC corresponded to a part of the great call. Significant individual differences were found across six individual gibbons in each of the six PCs. Moreover, strong acoustic individuality was found in the introductory and climax parts of the great call. In contrast, the terminal part contributed little to individual identification. Discriminant analysis showed that these PCs contributed to individual discrimination with high repeatability. Although we cannot conclude that agile gibbon use these acoustic components for individual discrimination, they are potential candidates for individual recognition.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acoustic features contributing to the individuality of wild agile gibbon (Hylobates agilis agilis) songs

Oyakawa

Koda

Sugiura

2007

American J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recent evidence for individual distinctiveness in vocalizations was obtained in the squirrel monkey (Boinski & Mitchell 1997), in the baboon (Owren et al 1997), the rhesus monkey (Rendall et al 1996(Rendall et al , 1998Owren & Rendall 2003), the Japanese macaque (Ceugniet & Izumi 2004a) and the cotton-top tamarin (Weiss et al 2001). Owren et al (1997) showed that the spectral energy peak (formant) patterning varied with caller identity in baboon grunts, and constituted the strongest grouping variable.…”

Section: Perception Of Identity Information In Voicementioning

confidence: 99%

Voice processing in human and non-human primates

Belin

2006

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans share with non-human primates a number of voice perception abilities of crucial importance in social interactions, such as the ability to identify a conspecific individual from its vocalizations. Speech perception is likely to have evolved in our ancestors on the basis of pre-existing neural mechanisms involved in extracting behaviourally relevant information from conspecific vocalizations (CVs). Studying the neural bases of voice perception in primates thus not only has the potential to shed light on cerebral mechanisms that may be-unlike those involved in speech perception-directly homologous between species, but also has direct implications for our understanding of how speech appeared in humans. In this comparative review, we focus on behavioural and neurobiological evidence relative to two issues central to voice perception in human and non-human primates: (i) are CVs 'special', i.e. are they analysed using dedicated cerebral mechanisms not used for other sound categories, and (ii) to what extent and using what neural mechanisms do primates identify conspecific individuals from their vocalizations?

show abstract

“…In this sense, acoustic marking can be especially advantageous when studying sensitive or threatened species (Gilbert et al 1994). Most individual recognition studies via acoustic signals have been carried out in territorial birds, but the technique has been used also in other taxa such as amphibians and numerous mammals (Ceugniet and Izumi 2004). In the latter group, however, the problematic identification of calling individuals due to variation associated to social factors has limited the applicability of the method (Mitani and Brandt 1994).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Who are we sampling? Apparent survival differs between methods in a secretive species

Vögeli¹,

Laiolo²,

Serrano³

et al. 2008

Oikos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Survival is a fundamental parameter in population dynamics with increasing importance in the management and conservation strategies of wildlife populations. Survival probability in vertebrates is usually estimated by live-encounter data obtained by means of physical markÁcaptureÁrecapture protocols. Non-invasive acoustic marking relying on individual-specific features of signals has been alternatively applied as a marking technique, especially in secretive species. Nevertheless, to date no research has compared survival rate estimates obtained by acoustic and physical marking. We estimated half-yearly and annual survival and recapture rates of a secretive and threatened passerine, the Dupont's lark Chersophilus duponti, using two separate live-encounter data sets of males collected simultaneously by physical and acoustic marking in the same study area. The separate analysis of both methods led to different model structures, since transient individuals had to be accounted for in the acoustic marking but not in the physical marking data set. Furthermore, while reencounter probabilities did not differ between methods, survival estimates employing physical marking were lower than those obtained acoustically, especially between the postbreeding and the breeding period when the apparent survival of colour-banded birds was twice as low as for acoustic marking. The combination of marking methods suggested the existence of different subsets of individuals differentially sampled within the population: whereas colour-banded males seemed to represent the territorial fraction of the population, both resident and floater individuals were probably detected by acoustic marking. Using traditional markÁrecapture methods exclusively could have misled our estimates of survival rates, potentially affecting prospective predictions of population dynamics. Acoustic marking has been poorly applied in markÁrecapture studies, but might be a powerful complement to obtain accurate estimates of fundamental demographic parameters such as survival and dispersal.

show abstract

Individual vocal differences of the coo call in Japanese monkeys

Cited by 11 publications

References 26 publications

Acoustic features contributing to the individuality of wild agile gibbon (Hylobates agilis agilis) songs

Acoustic features contributing to the individuality of wild agile gibbon (Hylobates agilis agilis) songs

Voice processing in human and non-human primates

Who are we sampling? Apparent survival differs between methods in a secretive species

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About